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

Currently unused images are deleted after they have gone one month without an edit. This is way too long; any image that has gone unedited for more than like a week (if that) is pretty much guaranteed to make it all the way down the line. I propose shortening the length of time unused images can go without edits before they are deleted to one week. Cyberbob  Talk  06:00, 1 October 2009 (BST)

The deletion of unused images is already problematic. Images can not be restored if a mistake is made, and it is very easy to delete images that have been removed in a page wiping vandal act that may not be noticed for some days, or in edit disputes. As soon as they are edited off a page, the image shows up as unused and (unless they've been uploaded recently) immediately qualify for scheduled deletion, with no way for the sysop to track down which page they used to be included on -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:35 1 October 2009 (BST)

Have you looked at the list? It is made up of stupid ingame screenshots, outdated Necronet scans and logos for groups that have become defunct. In my weeks of trimming the list that is quite literally all I have ever seen, and if I was to ever see one that broke this mold I would hold off on nuking it simply because of this fact. The danger you speak of Does Not Exist. Cyberbob  Talk  16:15, 1 October 2009 (BST)

1. Yes Cyberbob  Talk  06:00, 1 October 2009 (BST)
2. Yes --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:21, 1 October 2009 (BST)

   No - As Boxy. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:39, 1 October 2009 (BST)

3. ?' Are they causing a problem of some sort? If so then I see no reason not to. --Honestmistake 12:11, 1 October 2009 (BST)

   No Sorry Bob, Boxy convinced me too. Without a very good reason I am unlikely to change my mind again. --Honestmistake 13:09, 1 October 2009 (BST)

4. No - There are problems with this scheduled deletion criteria already, it doesn't need strengthening -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:35 1 October 2009 (BST)
5. No --SirArgo ^Talk 17:21, 1 October 2009 (BST)

Recent Requests

0x0 Images

Failed with 5 for, 9 against. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 17:04, 27 September 2009 (BST)