UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling/Archive

This page contains all previous requests for Deletion Scheduling.

User Page Redirects

User page redirects in the main space should be delete on sight as crit 3 or 9. The community voted against keeping them and in all fairness no one should have one. The exception will be Kevan. Redirects to permabanned vandals do not fall under this as they are for posterity and record keeping.

1. Yea The A/D votes settled it for me. This is the next logical step.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Yea - the limited pagenames in the main namespace is not to be used up with hundreds of user page redirects, and neither should it be that popular users should be exempt from the A/SD criteria because they can manufacture A/D votes -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 21:51 7 November 2008 (BST)
3. Yea - Fits in nicely with the scheduled deletion after moves. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Aye - The people have spoken. Let it be so. -- Cheese 22:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Yes - Sounds good. --ZsL 22:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
6. Yes - Can't see a problem with it. Linkthewindow ^Talk 23:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Yea - No user redirects in the main namespace. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [523,07]} 23:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
8. Yea - This has been the case for years. The only reason it's even an issue is because for the first time the idiots trying to buck the system for their own benefit have actually bothered to contest the rulings. One rule for everybody (except Kevan obv). --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 23:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
9. Yes - I spose this should be enforced to the end right? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
10. Yea As much a I enjoy Rosslessness, lets kill em. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 02:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

    We really will need a UHUB, won't we? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

    We sure will... Linkthewindow ^Talk 13:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

    I've started a discussion about how a UHUB might work here. Just to get some community consensus before actually creating one. Linkthewindow ^{Talk MCM} 06:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

11. Yea - makes sense. --Pdeq^Talk* 05:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
12. Yup - Community vote on a few shows they aren't wanted, might as well clear this up for the future then.--xoxo 05:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nomination passed unanimously -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:29 25 November 2008 (BST)

Attack Pages

Pages made solely to attack/discredit/whatever another user (example: User X is a filthy PKer, we must killz him nao! or the recent Boxy/Ioncannon is a cunt) can be deleted on sight.

1. Aye - Some of this is already scheduled (solely vandal pages) but this just takes care of Trenchy n00bs posting their grievances all over the place because someone killed them. -- Cheese 22:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
2. No - pages may be made, esp. in the group or user sub-page area, to discredit players or other users (ie. this). Pages that use extreme swearing in their titles, however... -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:19 7 November 2008 (BST)

   I'm meaning in the main namespace. User and Group pages are fine. I really should have put that in. =p -- Cheese 22:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

   I still think that arbitration or vandal banning are better ways to determine the outcome in attack pages. It can be a tricky area that may need extended discussion, rather than just a single sysops opinion on the intent of a page. The ones titled "xxxx is a cunt" could probably be taken out though, as pure flamebait -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:30 7 November 2008 (BST)

3. Weak Yes - Just determine what an "attack" is, and don't delete pages in a user subspace. Linkthewindow ^Talk 23:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Nay - Mostly as boxy. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [523,07]} 23:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Yea - In the cases where the nature of the page is not blatantly obvious (which is the case 99% of the time) common sense should apply. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 23:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

   If something requires a "common sense" decision, it shouldn't be approved for scheduled deletion. Scheduled deletions should be only for things that are black and white decisions, otherwise it should be discussed on A/SD -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:57 8 November 2008 (BST)

   yes 01:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC) unsigned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:00 8 November 2008 (BST)

6. Nay as mid. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 02:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Nay - As car ick. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
8. No - Covered under vandalism, everything else has an arguable purpose.--Karek^maps?! 20:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
9. No - . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
10. Yes If it is covered under a vandalism delete then there is no reason for it not to be "scheduled". If it is going to be reported as vandalism because it is an attack page it should be deleted. If it is going to be deleted as an attack page it should be reported as vandalism. That simple.--– Nubis ^NWO 22:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

    Sure there is, it's called the No Needless Policies rule. If a law serves no purpose it shouldn't exist, this would serve no purpose and just serve to add to the already large amount of text new users need to read through to find stuff that does actually matter. Vandalism is removable on sight, that alone is more than enough.--Karek^maps?! 16:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

11. Yes You Betcha.. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 02:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
12. No - a/vb.--xoxo 07:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
13. Aye - If you're looking to change someone's behaviour, making an attack page about them is much more likely to get their back up than to convince them of the error of their ways. So I think the ill-will generated by these sorts of pages outweighs any informational benefit they may have. Still, Boxy does have a good point that the line between okay and not-okay for a page like this is not always obvious, and so for these sorts of decisions, going through a process like A/SD or A/D that gives (at least) a second opinion is useful, in showing fair process and avoiding drama. If putting attack pages through A/SD was an option on the table I would support it, but delete-on-sight is the option that's available, so it'll do. With regards to just treating this as vandalism, it can be may be too easy for sysops to say something like 'Sysops are not moderators' or 'those old civility policies got rejected' and let people get away with making pages to insult or demean others. The advantage of having something like this spelt out is that it stops that. --Toejam 07:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    You know, you can propose it as a policy and it'll be put to a full vote. That's how crit 12 both was made and died along with pretty much every new sd crit beyond the originals.--Karek^maps?! 23:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nomination defeated 6 yes to 7 no -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:29 25 November 2008 (BST)

Swearing in Page Titles

Pages that have swearing in the title that is directed at a user or group (or their actions) are to be added to the scheduled deletions list. This would include pages like "boxy is a cunt" or "petition to ban that bastard hagnat" but not pages like "Blackmore Bastards". Other examples of swearing in page titles should be taken to A/SD or A/D for removal.

1. Yea - flamebaitery via page creation should be deleted on sight -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:37 7 November 2008 (BST)
2. Yes As Boxy. Linkthewindow ^Talk 23:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Nay - If the only objectionable thing is the title, you could just move the page. Moves can be done on sight, you know. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [523,07]} 23:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Yea - If the title of the page is flamebait-y, its content is hardly likely to be in good faith either. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 23:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Aye nuff said already --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 00:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
6. Yes - As Cyberbob. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Yea. As DDR. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 02:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
8. Aye - As Ross. -- Cheese 19:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
9. No - You need to show bad faith first; No vandalism without vandalism. As Midianian who speaks more sense than all these sysops that don't seem to know what they can already do.--Karek^maps?! 20:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
10. No - Not a cut and dry issue, should be taken to A/D for community discussion. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
11. No - All of these should be discussed. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
12. Yes As Cyberbob.--– Nubis ^NWO 22:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
13. Yea As my sweet Aunt Esther Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 02:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
14. Yea --Toejam 04:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
15. No - i agree with the case by case people.--xoxo 07:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nomination passed 10 yes to 5 no -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:29 25 November 2008 (BST)

Attack Images

As the attack pages heading pretty much, except that images are a radically different beast due to their ability to be placed anywhere.

1. Yea - Reasoning already given. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 23:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
2. No - not unless you can give a satisfactory definition of what an attack image is -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:05 8 November 2008 (BST)

   That image would not be considered an attack image because of how obviously a satire it is. I'm thinking of something like a derogatory portrayal of what the uploader might think the subject might be IRL, or maybe a photoshopped version of a photo of them or something of that nature. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 03:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   Perhaps a little reading would be appropriate, as Grim and Bob knew what I had meant, hence the reason why it was on their pages. Now then. I believe the types of images that Bob is referring to is like the one in this vandal banning report. You know, the image and template that called for a specific user's death? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 16:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   Sarcasm: witty language used to convey insults or scorn. Sarcasm is a witty form of attack, Akule. Just because Grim sees and collects attacks on him as some sort of badge of honour, doesn't make it less of an attack. I know what Bob is getting at here, but there is no clear way to draw a line between unacceptable attacks on a persons character, and sarcastic wit. Take it to A/SD -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:20 9 November 2008 (BST)

   Yet, you were unable to read from my link and had to look elsewhere to get your definition. 2 :trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly . There is a simple different between poking fun at someone and threatening their life (even in jest). I think that is a pretty clear distinction, don't you? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

   Your link was unavailable when I tried to check it. It works now, and it's first definition is Satire: a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn. Ridicule and scorn. Yep, similar to the definition I gave, it's an attack on someone's behaviour. All I'm pointing out is that with such a loosely worded policy, such images could be wikilawyered to fit, and be gone in an instant. All it would take is one sysop who wanted it gone -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:49 11 November 2008 (BST)

   Yes but, a few sysops have already notably made that mistake. --Karek^maps?! 20:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   Perhaps some distinction should be made in order for people to determine the difference. You know, like some sort of line in the sand stating "This is okay, but this is not." --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

   Oh, so now you agree :) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:49 11 November 2008 (BST)

3. No - As Boxy. Linkthewindow ^Talk 13:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
4. No - Everything that needs covering under this already is covered and removable on sight. This argument has already been had out multiple times, just dig through Boxy's archives if you want to find at least two of them.--Karek^maps?! 20:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
5. No - . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
6. Nay - As Karek. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [522,08]} 22:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Yes Peace... Land... Bread... Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 02:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
8. No - bad idea, once it's gone it's gone and as we all know sysops make mistakes from time to time.--xoxo 07:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
9. Yea --Toejam 22:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Nomination defeated 3 yes to 6 no -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:29 25 November 2008 (BST)

Unused Templates

If a template is not linked to any other page in the wiki, and the last edit to such template was made more than 3 months ago, it can be removed on sight.

1. Aye --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 00:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   So... does that "linked" really mean "linked", or do you mean "included"? --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [502,08]} 02:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   If a template is even just text linked that will show up on other links, unlike with images. If an image is just text linked it won't show up.--– Nubis ^NWO 22:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   Yes it will, if you look at the whatlinkshere page for the image -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:13 9 November 2008 (BST)

   Not always. Right now on my sandbox I have a text link to Lady xXx Death.jpg and it doesn't show up on the what links here and the image still shows up on the Unused Files page (no. 4 at this time).--– Nubis ^NWO 04:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

   That's because you used an external link to the image. Any page linked in that way wont show up in the "whatlinkshere" page. Proper formatting fixes that... [[:Image:Lady xXx Death.jpg|link]] -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:39 11 November 2008 (BST)

   You proved my point. I have a functioning text link to that image. You also have a functioning text link to the image. Both links still work so there really isn't an issue of which one is "proper format". If my link wasn't "proper" it shouldn't work. The point is you can't assume that every user will format exactly the same way when all people are concerned about is if it works how they want it to.--– Nubis ^NWO 20:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

   The point is that the whatlinkshere link works exactly the same for images as it does for any other page on the wiki, templates included. If a template is text linked in the same way you did with that image, it wouldn't show in whatlinkshere either -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 21:26 14 November 2008 (BST)

2. No - not all unused templates should be deleted. Often ones that are only used to "subst:" onto a page come up as unused. Giving sysops carte blanche to just wade into the unused templates list and start deleting will see these taken out with no record of why, or what was on the page for regular users to decide if they should ask for it to be restored -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:54 8 November 2008 (BST)
3. No - Let's not get carried away with all these scheduled. As boxy. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Nay Take the current list of unused as an example, put them all up for deletions. They wouldnt all be killed. Theres quite a few that are subst-ed in. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 02:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
5. No - Should be put on A/SD first. Some people may have the subst-ed in. Linkthewindow ^Talk 13:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
6. No --Karek^maps?! 20:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
7. No - Is it stupid ideas day? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
8. Nay - Deleting unused templates only makes them inaccessible. There's little point in deleting them unless their content is objectionable. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [522,08]} 22:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
9. Yes Because the number of unused useful templates (Template:HistoricalEventVoting) to "attack" templates (Template:Saromu is Devil (improved)) to retarded templates (Template:Tomatoes) is ridiculous. (yes, I know tomatoes is in use, but that is the type I am talking about.) --– Nubis ^NWO 22:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
10. No - Because this is clearly just an attempt to justify Nubis's template deletion in retrospect. -- Cheese 18:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    NO, this is me following the advice of those who said that if i am unhappy with the system, its better change the system (rather than yell at it and keep ignoring it) --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 18:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    Cheese, that isn't a justification for not scheduling templates for deletion. That is an accusation and assumption of motive. Also, you should realize that even if they are voted as scheduled it wouldn't be retro-active and couldn't be applied to the case. Vote on the suggestion not the suggestor.--– Nubis ^NWO 04:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

11. Yesjust because I can...Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 02:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
12. Yes - Strange to see a deletionist proposal from Hagnat, but there you go. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
13. No - I think it would be best for templates to go through SD. --ZsL 18:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Nomination defeated 4 yes to 9 no -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:29 25 November 2008 (BST)

Abandoned Group Pages

Any group page that has had no edits made to it for more than a month and consists of no more than a group box and a few lines of generic text may be deleted if the following conditions are fulfilled: 1) There is no evidence of the group appearing on the Game Stats page. 2) A note has been left on the creators talk page asking them about the group's status. 3) The aforementioned note has not been replied to within 7 days, or the response was for deletion.
If after the week, there has been no reply (or the response indicated that the page can be deleted) the page may be deleted. If the user replies after the page has been deleted that they still want it, it can simply be Undeleted. If there is any doubt whatsoever, the page should be placed on the Deletions page as normal. -- Cheese 21:21, 11 July 2008 (BST)

1. Yea - There's a lot of these about nowadays. -- Cheese 21:21, 11 July 2008 (BST)
2. Yea - same as Krazy monkey, too many dead groups.
3. Nay Original author may no longer be active, or they may have migrated to a forum. a week is too short a time (I'd double it). We may have lost crit 12, but people can, and do use deletions. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:40, 11 July 2008 (BST)
4. Nay - Things like group pages need to be judged on a case by case basis, or have much stricter requirements on what allows them to be a scheduled deletion. --Pdeq^Talk* 22:35, 11 July 2008 (BST)
5. Nay - As above. Also some groups may only consist of a handful of members and not be large enough for the stats page, and may not have a frequently updated news section. I know if it was based only on updates the Feral Undead page would have been deleted a dozen times already. and i also agree that the warning should have a longer grace period, one week is hardly enough for the average user, they don't log in as often as us wiki addicts. --Bullgod 23:18, 11 July 2008 (BST)
6. Nay - Above lists it well. Activity on the Wiki does not equal activity on UD. --Rogue 08:42, 12 July 2008 (BST)
7. Absolutely not - These go through speedydelete so that everyone can easily check that they actually are crit 1's, and it's much less of a hassle than checking to see if you get a reply from a hardly active author -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:57 12 July 2008 (BST)
8. No - Crit 12 will not be returning.--Karek^maps?! 16:46, 12 July 2008 (BST)
9. No - above. --WanYao 21:36, 12 July 2008 (BST)
10. Nay - Even dead pages are a useful resource. But as Rosslessness. --Vandurn 22:21, 12 July 2008 (BST)
11. No - again, some groups are under-represented on the wiki, regardless of presence in the game. This kind of punishment for not keeping up appearances on the wiki leads to the kind of misrepresentation of actual game situation that should be avoided--Crabappleslegalteam 00:45, 13 July 2008 (BST)
12. Nay - As above. --Private Mark 22:06, 13 July 2008 (BST)
13. HELL NO - go clean up something in RL instead.----Sexualharrison 04:45, 17 July 2008 (BST)
14. Fuck no - Crit 12 shall never return in any form. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 17:59, 20 July 2008 (BST)

Vote fails. 2 for, 12 against. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 18:24, 26 July 2008 (BST)

Crit 1 Extension

Any page with less than 4 characters (including blank pages, although obviously not those which are because of vandalism, and not including pages with a template since a template has to have at least 5 characters ({{?}})) that have been that way for at least a week may be deleted on sight. -- Cheese 18:46, 11 July 2008 (BST)

1. Yea - Pinched out the shiny new archive since it had only one valid vote. :) -- Cheese 18:46, 11 July 2008 (BST)
2. No - Impossible to verify to ensure this wont be abused. Simply having them all put up on A/SD every few months is more than enough to get rid of the clutter, and it doesnt really take very long to do. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 18:49, 11 July 2008 (BST)
3. No - It's not the issue it was when I first proposed a similar scheduling.--Karek^maps?! 19:40, 11 July 2008 (BST)
4. No - Give them 2 weeks and I vote Yes. --WanYao 20:15, 11 July 2008 (BST)
5. Change - How about instead of being a delete on sight or having to be placed on A/SD we make it so that if you find a mostly blank page you post on the creator's talk page telling them it needs content then after 2 weeks if it isn't changed you can delete it. This way we don't delete a page too hastily, we document that we intend to delete the page (same function as posting it on A/SD), and besides the author might reply to your post with a "go ahead" giving that sysop approval to delete it.
   And in regards to being abused, we are supposed to be trusted users here. All actions on this thing are documented and traceable back to the person that did it. If someone's page is deleted it can be restored (unlike images). If a sysop is in the habit (more than twice) of deleting pages that people keep requesting undeleted then that is clearly misconduct.--– Nubis ^NWO 20:40, 11 July 2008 (BST)
6. No, I agree than the majority of dead groups won't have a leader around (or one who chooses) to notify others of them.-- Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 06:33, 12 July 2008 (BST)
   P.S. Nubis disrupted the number order, can someone put a Re: tag in? I'm not familiar with the coding.

   All fixed --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 07:08, 12 July 2008 (BST)

7. No - how about we just post them to the speedydelete queue to ensure that the page wiping hasn't been done by someone unauthorised to do so -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:00 12 July 2008 (BST)
8. No - again, this is all very arbitrary--Crabappleslegalteam 00:47, 13 July 2008 (BST)
9. "NO"--the economy33

Vote fails. 1 for, 8 against. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 18:24, 26 July 2008 (BST)

Pornography

Pretty simple: Porn is to be deleted on sight. I like porn, you like porn, but this isnt the place for it. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 18:06, 8 July 2008 (BST)

1. yea. its not really the place for file sharing is it? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:17, 8 July 2008 (BST)

2. Yes. I thought we already had a TOU cover for this, but if we need to nail it down with a scheduled deletion then I'm all for it. Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 21:45, 8 July 2008 (BST)
3. Yea. --Pdeq^Talk* 21:56, 8 July 2008 (BST)
4. Yea. Should go without saying, but just in case. --Sir Bob Fortune ^RR 22:17, 8 July 2008 (BST)
5. Aye. -- Cheese 22:22, 8 July 2008 (BST)
6. Yea. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:26, 8 July 2008 (BST)
7. Yes -- I think we should expand the definition to include uncensored nipples and and any visible genitalia. I don't have anything against nudity, but there shouldn't have to be a WORK SAFE/NOT WORK SAFE warning on the wiki. (text is different).Just to be on the safe side.--– Nubis ^NWO 23:18, 8 July 2008 (BST)

   Since when is a zombie apocalypse wiki work safe anyway? :S -- Cheese 20:39, 9 July 2008 (BST)

   Haha - Let's have the whole what is text rape argument again! That was a hoot.--– Nubis ^NWO 20:50, 11 July 2008 (BST)

8. No - Because we need a definition of "porn". And the whole idea that what is porn vs. what is art? is often debatable. I mean look at photobucket, for example... Deleting art left right and centre, losers. Still, I think no photographic nudity, as per nubis, is pretty acceptable and if such a definition were added, I'd certainly vote Yes. --WanYao 20:13, 11 July 2008 (BST)

   I think this may have come up because someone uploaded an image that was basically a woman's gaping vagina forming the mouth (and considerable beard!) of a dwarf with MSPaint eyes and helmet. That is neither artistic nor overtly sexual or portraying a sex act, but still pornography. Unless you want to classify it as gynecology. I think in blatant cases like that the whole "but is it porn?" debate is moot. --– Nubis ^NWO 20:49, 11 July 2008 (BST)

   that would be obscenity not pornography... there is a huge difference. That said actual porn should be banned but certainly not images which are merely "raunchy" the problem here is going to be definitions. I know people who think page 3 and FHM are porn while i know of one person who is adamant that his copulating werewolf/human pics are "interspecies erotica"; he's wrong in oh so many ways but still!--Honestmistake 20:59, 11 July 2008 (BST)

   Using your definition of "raunchy" tubgirl is just raunchy. Would you allow that on here? I think it comes down to "is this appropriate or just for shock value?" For instance, with my example, that's just shock value. With Bullgod's fine art it can be appropriate (on a museum page or relating to a group perhaps). Outside the context of fine art meaning classical statues/paintings, I really can't see any reason to post nudity on this wiki. I also don't think that any sysop on here is so new to the internet that they would get offended by a Page 3 girl or FHM. Hell, I wouldn't even be offended by tubgirl, but I know that's not appropriate for the wiki. I don't think this is something that needs a rigid definition. I think it comes down to do we trust the sysops judgment on what would be appropriate.--– Nubis ^NWO 00:16, 12 July 2008 (BST)

   Gad, that was a retarded example, Nubis. Those are all retarded examples. The reality is that most calls are going to be obvious... However, there have been calls to delete the Slaves of the Mistress wiki in the past... So, there ARE people who're going to try to impose their morarlity on things that are not obviously over-the-top images. But... then again... But you kids wanna play this game, with these definitions and examples? Ooooookay... Here's an issue: the gore and the violence that is represented visually on here (it *is* a horror genre game, after all...) is just fine for a 12 year old kid to see? but a nice artistic picture of a naked woman? BANNED CENSORED ZOMG BOOBIES!!! --WanYao 21:47, 12 July 2008 (BST)

   Ok, Wan, then what is the answer on the gaping vagina dwarf picture (which is a real example of something that was uploaded)? Is that in genre? Is that appropriate? Is that art? It isn't about censorship. It's about what is appropriate to a zombie apocalypse wiki. Violence and gore are standard to the genre. Did you happen to miss the part where I said With Bullgod's fine art it can be appropriate (on a museum page or relating to a group perhaps). or do you just want to argue with me and use all caps to spew catchphrases and say BOOBIES? And where the fuck did this 12 year old kid come into play? This isn't a "think of the children" argument. It is a "How does this giant picture of a vagina as a dwarf fit in with zombies" discussion. (at least in these indents).

   But, I will admit that my no visible genitalia/nipples comment is a bit confusing. The intent wasn't against artistic nudity in classical art, but against posting things like cam whores writing people's character's names over their tits.--– Nubis ^NWO 22:47, 12 July 2008 (BST)

   I just think it was silly, by both you and honestmistake, to bring up examples that are so obviously inappropriate... very man-o-strawish... As for everything else, you're kind of arguing around me, or beside me, or something... Because we're pretty much in agreement here... Except that I put forward the caveat that one man's art can be another man's obsceneity, thus we have to be careful. That's all. I honestly seems like you're arguing with me just for the sake of arguing with me here. Whatever. --WanYao 09:24, 13 July 2008 (BST)

   Ok... but let's bring up something else... you mentioned what's part of the genre... gore is part of genre... yes... And, ok, the Romero movies do not have nudity, but a HUGE section of the genre elsewhere DOES. Return of the Living Dead has ZOMG not only boobies, but FULL FRONTAL. Nudity being part of the whole B-movie sexploitation horror genre, within which a giant chunk of zombie flicks fit... basically we're talking out our asses here now, because close-up money shots are not fucking appropriate. Photos of chicks shooting wet farts 6 feet in the air are not appropriate. Any idiot can figure that out. So why are you arguing with me? Beyond that, I've already said where I stand. --WanYao 09:36, 13 July 2008 (BST)

   This whole side debate is a good example of why formalizing it in this manner is probably a bad idea, we all know what is meant by the proposed policy, it's not complicated.--Karek^maps?! 00:55, 14 July 2008 (BST)

   Uhm... yeah... this discussion kind of got out of hand... Anyhoo... And if there is debate on a particular image, whether it's pr0n or art? Well... it can go to a vote and the community decides its standards and boundaries. --WanYao 03:54, 15 July 2008 (BST)

   Vote on a scheduled deletion? The whole point of scheduled deletions is that it's immediate. No, someone's just going to delete it and end up in misconduct. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 12:07, 15 July 2008 (BST)

   I am not talking about scheduled deletions anymore. Some things are going to be pretty obvious, and will be immediately deleted. Others, which are not obvious, will be put to a vote. i.e., the status quo -- but I'm kinda defining my preferred methodology within it... --WanYao 03:01, 17 July 2008 (BST)

9. yea, but only half way. i agree with no genitals, but a bare behind or a woman's bare chest are not enough to warrant me calling something pornography. thats like saying the Venus De Milo or Picasso's famous Blue Nude are inappropriate, and im not willing to go that far. --Bullgod 23:36, 11 July 2008 (BST)
10. yea, but leave the debate open as to what is and isn't porn. I do agree, however, if anyone posts any long films of people having sex that they should be removed.-- Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 06:32, 12 July 2008 (BST)
11. No - already covered under the automatic deletion of bad faith vandalism, and this just opens the door for people to delete images, call them porn (a hard to define concept in the gray areas) and have no comeback. If someone is uploading porn to the wiki, the evidence should be kept at least long enough for another sysop to make or confirm a ruling of vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:05 12 July 2008 (BST)
12. No - As Boxy, it's needless repetition, just deal with it how we always have.--Karek^maps?! 16:45, 12 July 2008 (BST)
13. No - As boxy. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 17:15, 12 July 2008 (BST)

    Also, a dwarf made from a gaping vagina isn't porn. A still from a sex-ed video isn't porn either. This is ^{(everyone's favourite word)} reactionary, redundant, and fails to address what it aims to do. It seems suggestions and policies are not the only things that would benefit from a bit of discussion before voting. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 12:54, 13 July 2008 (BST)

14. Yea The wikization of the UD wiki is needed. They have all that red tape because it works. --User:Axe27/Sig 21:53, 12 July 2008 (BST)

    Actually they have most of their red tape on wikipedia because it doesn't work and they don't know how to make it work.--Karek^maps?! 00:48, 13 July 2008 (BST)

15. Yea - What is said is said, and no doubt a definition will be provided. --Vandurn 22:24, 12 July 2008 (BST)
16. Yes - again, care should be taken to avoid abuse --Crabappleslegalteam 00:52, 13 July 2008 (BST)
17. No - As boxy. This is redundant. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 02:24, 13 July 2008 (BST)
18. Yes - As above. --Private Mark 22:07, 13 July 2008 (BST)
19. yeah - Maybe just change it to not worksafe images in general? Padfu-Zomfu 17:36, 20 July 2008 (BST)
20. Yes - Author vote --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 18:00, 20 July 2008 (BST)

Scheduling approved, 15 for, 5 against. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 18:24, 26 July 2008 (BST)

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. We can't stop someone who is determined to spread your private details, but at least we can not let them use the wiki to do it. Toejam 18:37, 9 April 2008 (BST)

1. Yea - Private info can't go through normal deletions because it would just draw attention to itself, and give google's cache more time to store it. --Toejam 18:34, 9 April 2008 (BST)

   Hmm...not a lot of people have seen this. Maybe policy discussion is a better place. --Toejam 15:08, 11 April 2008 (BST)

2. Yea - Exceptions should be made to mudkipz, they need to die. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:28, 12 April 2008 (BST)
3. Yea - Sure. --ZsL 20:58, 15 April 2008 (BST)
4. Aye - could be abused, but the admin staff should be able to solve this kind of cases. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:03, 15 April 2008 (BST)
5. Nay horseys - 1. Wrong Place, 2. Already covered in, if not by word, by the spirit of the existence of the UDWiki:Privacy_policy, if we can't give out personal information(IPs) why would personal information(street addresses, phone numbers, etc.) be given out. Especially considering you can use one to get the other. I'm sure there's more policy on this somewhere but even if there isn't spamming other user's personal information is vandalism, easily.--Karek^maps?! 18:02, 17 April 2008 (BST)

   The privacy policy covers how data gathered through server logs or administrators' IP checks will be released, but it doesn't cover regular wiki users, only mods, nor does it cover information gained by methods other than server logs or IP checks. And this SD would allow anyone to have their personal information taken off the wiki, not just if the info was being spammed. --Toejam 20:24, 24 April 2008 (BST)

   This would be an incident where I'd recommend you trust a SysOps judgement in this instead of insisting every little thing we can and do do be mentioned in a policy somewhere. It's bad for the wiki and it's bad for users trying to understand the rules of the wiki. If this kind of information is being posted somewhere alert a SysOp and they should deal with it, I know if it's mentioned on my talk page or A/VB, etc. I'll make it a top priority to not only delete it but to remove it from the histories as well.--Karek^maps?! 23:58, 24 April 2008 (BST)

6. Yes - Although I don't think it needed spelling out. It's one of those things that hardly ever comes up, but is covered under sysops are also given the authority to make decisions regarding actions for which there is no governing policy in place -- boxy ^{talk • i} 00:34 25 April 2008 (BST)

• Approved -- Cheese 18:33, 11 July 2008 (BST)

Crit 1 Extension

Any pages with 4 or less characters on the whole page, this includes blank pages with 0 content but not pages with templates(all templates are an absolute minimum of 5 characters). This would allow crit 1s made by users moving their own pages then wiping the old ones able to be deleted on sight.--Karek^maps?! 02:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This does not include vandalized pages, obviously.--Karek^maps?! 02:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Nay - I dono, a lot of users clear pages, than add content a little while later after someone speaks to them or for whatever other reason. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Yea - I suppose this will help clear up some of the confusion. --User:Axe27/Sig 20:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Yea - Make it so they have to have been blank for 48 hours. -- Cheese 20:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Nay Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 20:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

   Man you guys are late.--Karek^maps?! 17:57, 17 April 2008 (BST)

Image hosting

Screenshots uploaded for the purpose of image hosting should be deleted immediately on sight. This is a wiki, not imageshack or Iwitness.

Examples would be PK/GK/RK/Zerg report images. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grim s (talk • contribs) 17:00, November 30, 2007 (UTC).

1. yeaNo for now - I assume this doesn't include anything in use. --Karek^maps?! 17:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Boxy has a point, if a minimum time for existence is added I'll re-add my yea. --Karek^maps?! 02:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
2. no - Any screenshots that are being used on the wiki are fine, and any that arn't being used are already covered under unused images, and deleted -- boxy • talk • 00:06 1 December 2007 (BST)

   This doesnt affect those being used, and for unused images you have to wait a month. This is to dispose of such images quickly and efficiently to discourage the use fo the wiki as an image hosting service. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 01:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

   How long would we give them to link to the image though, before zapping it. That, and the fact that it only refers to unused screenshots, needs to be spelled out in the proposed change before I would vote for this -- boxy • talk • 01:40 2 December 2007 (BST)

3. Nay Not until you are more clear on the time limits. --User:Axe27/Sig 19:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
4. No - Screenshots can have legitimate purposes on the wiki besides PK/zerg reports; e.g., as examples or how-tos. There's no clear way to know whether a screen has been "uploaded for the purpose of image hosting". -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Monumental Screwups

Two special case scenarios that I want to be able to annihilate on sight, are:

1. Pages in this form: With//////Too Many//////Bloody//////Slashes
2. And pages in this dreaded form: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Example_monumental_screwup

Since these pages cannot be moved, useful content will have to be manually copied first. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:54, 9 August 2006 (BST)

• Yea –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:54, 9 August 2006 (BST)
• Yea --Darth Sensitive ^W! 13:41, 9 August 2006 (BST)
• Yeah --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 23:22, 21 August 2006 (BST)
• Yea Cyberbob  Talk  12:55, 23 August 2006 (BST)

  Voting passed already, brightspark. :P –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 12:59, 23 August 2006 (BST)

Unused Images

Images that have existed for 2 weeks and are not used in any page.--Gage 05:59, 25 October 2006 (BST)

• Yea - Gage 05:59, 25 October 2006 (BST)
• Yea - --Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 06:01, 25 October 2006 (BST)
• Yea - --CaptainM 07:24, 26 October 2006 (BST)

I'm fairly certain we already have a policy on this (difference being it says one month). –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 19:04, 27 October 2006 (BST)

• Yea - The man 21:17, 25 July 2007 (BST)

Unused redirects resulting from page moves

If there isn't already a policy covering the automatic deletion of unused redirects (except for links from admin pages, eg. A/MR) resulting from page moves, I think we should be able to nuke them as soon as the page is moved, rather than spamming speedydelete -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 05:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Yea -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 13:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Yea Vantar 03:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Yea Daniel Hicken 00:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Maybe shouldn't vote here, but as a wiki admin on two other wikis, YES, for your sanity, YES.
4. Yea --User:Axe27/Sig 17:41, 13 April 2007 (BST) Hey, I'm just following Hicken's que.

   Well it's passed already, but thanks for the thought ;) -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 17:51, 13 April 2007 (BST)

   Your welcome. --User:Axe27/Sig 18:18, 13 April 2007 (BST)

5. Yea -The man 21:18, 25 July 2007 (BST)

Copyrighted images requested to be deleted by the copyright holder

Copyrighted images or otherwise images taken directly from a copyrighted source (such as a movie's snapshots) that have been requested to be removed by the copyright's holder or its representatives abroad.'

1. Yea - If only to make it clear that these have to be deleted for the good of wikikind. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:33, 27 October 2007 (BST)
2. Nay - It's covered under policy, and pages can already be deleted when "acting in accordance with approved policies" -- boxy • talk • 04:39 27 October 2007 (BST)

   But, wich policy? --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:05, 27 October 2007 (BST)

3. Yea - Needed to justify differences. --User:Axe27/Sig 04:40, 27 October 2007 (BST)

The future contents of Special:BrokenRedirects

If I'm reading Deletion Scheduling correctly this is the right place to put this.Currently redirects left over from pages move may be deleted without going through the deletion pages. I propose to extent this rule to redirects broken by page deletion by allowing redirects that lead to nonexistent pages to be deleted without going through the deletion pages.- Vantar 18:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Yea author vote - Vantar 18:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Aye --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Yea --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Yeah - Why not? --Toejam 20:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
5. yes --~~~~ [talk] 13:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

   Yea --User:Axe27/Sig 19:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   Voting close a couple of weeks ago -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:28 31 December 2007 (BST)